President Obama and many Democratic Party leaders, media executives and union leaders have been deeply influenced by the writings and teachings of the American Marxist- Saul Alinsky. Obama and many in the Democratic Party, have aggressively adopted the principles and strategies for social revolution proposed in Alinsky's book "Rules for Radicals".
It is also interesting to note that Hillary Clinton did her masters thesis on Saul Alinsky and has expressed great admiration for him and his work. Moreover, when Bill Clinton became president, the White House called Wesley College and pressured them not to make Hillary's thesis on Saul Alinsky's available to the public, to which pressure the college complied.
Saul Alinsky actually offered Hillary a job after graduating from Wesley College to work at his newly formed organization to target the middle class in an effort to bring about social change. Hillary thanked Alinsky for the job offer, but decided to go to law school instead.
Alinsky's philosophy to obtain Marxism in America was very Machiavellian. He supported the notion that the ends justify the means and that radicals were totally justified and encouraged to lie, cheat, steal, coerce, bribe or whatever it takes to attain their ends. He said that history would forgive them for any indiscretions because their end is morally justified.
Alinsky compares his movement to the "mythical" Lucifer who obtained dominion over earth through lies and deceit and felt that these tactics were essential to gain power from the establishment. Alinsky was very anti-capitalism and believed it should be destroyed at any cost and replaced by Socialist state.
Alinsky realized the futility of mobilizing the poor to achieve Socialism because there are simply too few of them to matter. He determined the best way to achieve Socialism was to collapse the system from within by targeting the middle class.
Alinsky realized that America was primarily a Judeo-Christian society and that a sense of Judeo-Christian guilt could be exploited. To create this guilt, corporations must be portrayed as exploiters of the poor and the poor must be made the victims.
Another important part of Alinsky's strategy is to shroud the poor in an ethnic cloak making it difficult for anyone to claim they are often responsible for their condition because of irresponsible life choices such as: quitting high-school, becoming young single mothers, fathers abandoning children, drug addiction, welfare addiction, illiteracy, criminal behavior, child abuse, joining gangs and a host of other dreadful mistakes with long lasting consequences.
If anyone ever asserts that the poor are often impoverished because of lousy choices made in their lives, they are immediately accused of being racist and bigots. It makes honest and open discussion impossible on poverty in America and how to actually solve it.
Even Alinsky described the welfare system as, "the worst piece of political pornography ever made against the poor because it created a class enslaved to government entitlements."
The next important phase of the "Rules for Radicals" is to get a number of Socialist in key positions of power in: the media, television, courts, Democratic Party, Unions, NAACP, political NGOs, the government, schools, universities and even in large corporations.
Once in place, these key people can then flood society with their Socialist propaganda including: America victimizes its the poor, the rich are evil, Americans are racists, Americans are bigots, Americans are selfish, Americans aren't compassionate, Americans are greedy, business is corrupt, business if evil, the free-market doesn't work, Conservatives are ignorant, Conservatives are archaic, etc.
All these themes are repeated as often as possible in as many ways as possible in newspapers, books, magazines, movies, TV programs, on the campaign trail, in the halls of Congress, in the classrooms, anywhere they can whenever they can.
Once these lies are repeated enough times, and generally become accepted by the middle class, the guilt-ridden middle class can then ease their consciences by electing Progressives to implement socialist programs and vastly increase the size and scope of the government and gradually replace capitalism with socialism.
If Conservatism is to survive, Conservatives must understand and learn how to effectively counter the "Rules for Radicals" espoused in Saul Alinsky's book.
The following are some of the main Alinsky Rules used to establish Socialism in America and how to counter them.
Alinsky Rule #1: "Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear and retreat."
Strategy:
Here Progressives try to steer discourse to find Conservative's weaknesses. Once a weakness is found, they bombard the person with trivia, lies and disinformation to keep the person off balance. They always attack the person, not the issue. If Progressives target issues, they will lose. Accordingly, Progressives must create confusion and fear and cause retreat.
How to Counter:
Remember the truth is on our side.
Don't be confused or fearful. Know the facts, don't be intimidated, be on the offensive and never retreat. Don't let Progressive bog you down in minutia. Turn the tables on them. Make them prove your own assertions are incorrect.
Progressive policies throughout history have either failed or in the process of failing. Point out the Progressive's failings (which there are many), give specific examples of where their policies have failed miserably. Make them owe up to their failures. They won't accept blame so they will be forced to retreat.
Progressives have a terrible history of failure that cannot be defended. The truth will always trump short-sighted ideas and philosophies.
Alinsky Rule #2: "Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this. They can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."
Progressive Strategy:
Progressives will try to make Conservatives look like hypocritical bigots and racist. Whenever a Conservative makes the slightest mistake, Progressives flood the media on the story until the public is sick and tired of the subject.
How to Counter:
-Show the Progressive their hypocrisy on the matter. Expose instances where they have done the same thing (usually much worse) and it wasn't a problem. Put them on the defensive. Remind them of their failures.
It is also important to practice what you preach. If mistakes are made, don't cover them up. Apologize immediately, explain the true facts of the situation and, depending on the situation, impose appropriate punishment and move on.
Whenever Progressives break the rules, hammer them with all you got. Keep the scandal in the news until people are almost sick of it but not to the extent where it backfires and looks spiteful.
Embarrass them, keep digging for dirt, find it, exploit it and destroy them, get them angry, make them look silly. Show their immorality, how they cheat, catch them in their lies. Don't let them off the hook. Throw the truth in their face. Make them dive for cover.
Rule #3) "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also, it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.
Actually, Alinsky is correct and Conservatives should use this rule as much as possible.
Ridicule Progressives as much as possible. Expose their lies, show how their programs never work. Show how ignorant they are. Show them how they just "don't get it." Show the failure of their war on poverty.
Compare and contrast the philosophical differences between Conservative and Progressives: Conservatives create jobs/Progressives give food stamps. Conservatives project power in foreign affairs/Progressives project weakness. Conservatives lower taxes/Progressives increase taxes, Conservatives support business/Progressives villianize business, Conservatives protect the Constitution/Progressives want to destroy Constitution. Conservatives want to enforce the law/ Progressives want to bend the law, Conservatives have a history of growth and prosperity/Progressives have a history of poverty and contraction, Conservatives want to build/ Progressives want to destroy.
The differences are stark and numerous and must be made clear to the electorate.
Ridicule the Progressive every chance you get. Show them where they are wrong. Show them their ideas never work and are hurtful to the country.
Contrast and conquer. Show the poverty of their ideas, show their disgraceful history of failure. Show them the numbers. They have no way to counter the truth. Truth and history will destroy the Progresive movement.
Rule #4: "The threat is generally more terrifying than the thing itself. (Man-made Global Warming, Illegal Immigrants, Tea Party members, Rush Limbaugh, etc.)
How to counter
Don't let the progressives get away with their Chicken Little disaster tales. They create imaginary threats they claim will destroy the world or the economy to generate fear and to posture the government as the only solution to these imaginary threats.
Expose their lies. Show the true nature of the situation and down play their disaster scenarios. Show them that they spend too much time on imaginary threats and not enough on real threats like the Federal Budget deficit, jobs, energy security, terrorism, run away government, etc.
Make their disaster scenarios a joke and don't forget to show them later they were wrong.
Rule #5: "In a fight, anything goes. It almost reaches a point where you stop to apologize if a chance blow lands above the belt."
How to Counter:
Expose their dirty lies, their deceitful and games: corruption, voter fraud, labor union scams, special interest group collusion, etc. It is important to get as much evidence as possible to show the public how dirty they are and to what means they are willing to use to achieve their ends. Give them enough rope and they will hang themselves.
Follow the law, but do play offensive ball as Alinsky suggests. This is a fight for the future of our country so, within the law, anything does go. Be absolutely brutal with Progressives. When they make a mistake or are caught in a lie, crucify them and don't be ashamed of showing their past mistakes and dredging up the past. Remind the American people daily that Progressives can't be trusted and are just concerned about gaining power for themselves and not what is best for the country.
Rule #6: "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. Avoid being trapped by an opponent or an interviewer who says, “Okay, what would you do?”
This is probably the easiest Alinsky tactic to beat. Unlike the Progressives, Conservatives have proven programs and philosophies that can lead our country to peace, prosperity and freedom. The Progressive philosophies will lead to higher taxes, higher debt, international political instability and eventually to tyranny.
Push Progressives to give specific details of their proposals and then show how the proposals will be a disaster for the country. Show were they are being naive, where their numbers are wrong, where and why their programs will fail. Give historic examples of their failures.
Rule #7: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame."
This is a very effective strategy often used by Progressives. The recent Obamacare Bill is the best example of this rule. Obama picked the target-health care, kept it in the news for over one year-froze it, personalized it by countless stories and letters from real people (often fraudulent) expressing the failure of the current health care system-personalized it, and polarized the country by making people feel guilt about the uninsured and portrayed those against Obamacare as racist, selfish and indifferent.
The Progressive movement currently has complete control of our great nation and threatens to destroy our Constitutional Republic and replace it with socialism and eventually tyranny.
In order to defeat Progressivism, we need to understand the strategies they employ and how to counter them. In addition, the Republican party needs to form a strong agenda between now and November.
Republicans must currently be the "Party of NO" but we must also be the Party of ideas and the Party of solutions to solve the many problems that threaten to destroy our economy, our Constitution, our freedoms and the American dream.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Keep the American Dream Alive
President Obama and Congress are not listening to America's cries for restraint and they have either unintentionally or by design put our great nation on an inevitable path to economic ruin and eventual tyranny.
I'm disheartened listening to the pompous and sarcastic words uttered by our President and Congress. They mock and taunt the American people, while our silent pleas for wisdom and honor fall into an abyss of hubris.In my despair I take hope in the Constitution's eloquent preamble, "We the people of the United States in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America."
These aren't just empty words made in some bygone era. This was an enlightened prayer of hope made by brave and honorable men who sought to make a more perfect union based on individual freedoms of MEN made in the image of God.
Compare this ardent prayer of our Republic to the soulless socialist "rights" that are conditionally tossed like chicken bones to starving dogs by some tyrant: the "right" to work, the "right" to housing, the "right" to health care, the "right" to eat, the "right" to education.... how empty and arrogant.
These socialist "rights" aren't even rights at all. These are intrinsic duties and obligations that free men of dignity living in a free country, gladly and ambitiously secure in the pursuit of happiness for themselves and their loved ones.
In a free and just democracy, our inalienable rights are endowed by our Creator and secured by the Constitution: freedom of speech, freedom to worship God, freedom of thought, freedom to own the fruits of our labor, freedom of assembly, freedom to petition, freedom to pursue our dreams, freedom to happiness, and many others.
In a Progressive Socialist State, freedoms of property, freedoms of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom to petition must be rationed and curtailed in order to achieve redistribution of wealth.
America's freedoms are not free. All our freedoms have been purchased by the precious blood of America's soldiers and patriots that was spilled on the banks of the Potomac, the fields of Gettysburg, the shores of Normandy, the sands of Iwo Jima and the deserts and mountains of Afghanistan.
The faces of these brave soldiers may fade into memory, but the dream of freedom and justice these honorable men fought to protect have will never and must never diminished in the hearts and minds of free Americans.
History commands us, our sons and daughters obligate us, the souls of our soldiers implore us to not let this dream called America fade into some austere bankrupt Socialist Nanny state that arbitrarily decides which "rights" and freedoms are tossed and rationed to its servants.
We cannot and must not let the American Dream perish.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Global Warming Hoax
I'm absolutely amazed that Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is still blowing hot air. What's even more depressing, is that President Obama is still pushing his Cap & Trade initiative at a cost of around $200 billion/year. (How many jobs does that equate to?)
What will it take to finally put an end to this AGW hoax? It's interesting to note it took scientist 40 years to finally expose the Piltdown Man Hoax was actually derived from the jawbone of a pig.
The way this AGW hoax is going, I wouldn't be surprised if it took 40 years to expose the AGW hoax was actually derived from the jawbones of two asses (Al Gore & Dr. Mann)
I have absolutely no problem with the fact that the earth is going through a period of natural global warming (NGW). No one is contesting that. My huge problem is with the "A" part of the AGW hoax.
Ok, let's go over the various problems with the AGW "theory".
1) Carbon Dioxide Levels Are Rising!!! (or Plop Plop Fizz Fizz, oh what a belief it is.)
Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, however, it is in minuscule amounts to the tune of 385 parts per million (ppm). Most of the earth's atmosphere is comprised of Nitrogen (78%) Oxygen (21%) and Argon (about 1%) and then a whole bunch of other trace gases.
To get an idea of just how small the 385ppm is, imagine a soccer stadium filled with 100,000 screaming spectators. Total CO2 levels would represent a whopping 38.5 people out of 100,000 people--an insignificant amount.
But it even gets better.... Man-made CO2 only accounts for about 7% of total atmospheric CO2, so the man-made portion of this already insignificant number drops down to, are you ready for it... 2.7 people in a stadium of 100,000 people... Smile for the TV cameras, CO2--HI MOM!!
There is more. As mentioned earlier, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, however, it has a relatively weak greenhouse effect. Measuring the greenhouse effect by using Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy, CO2 absorbs roughly 8% of the infrared electromagnetic spectrum in the frequency range of 15 micrometers. So take that infinitesimal amount of CO2 described above multiply that by the potential amount of heat energy that CO2 can absorb and you get an idea of just how little man-made CO2 contributes to the overall greenhouse effect.
It gets even worse. The main greenhouse gas on our planet is water vapor. Water vapor has a very strong greenhouse gas effect (roughly 850% stronger than CO2) that absorbs roughly 60% of the infrared spectrum including the frequency absorbed by CO2. Furthermore, there is significantly more water vapor in the air than yearly man-made CO2 to the tune of, wait for it.. 2,100,000,000%.... Oh no, tell me ain't so.
Isn't it funny that Al Gore forgot to mention this fact in "An Inconvenient Truth". Al must have just forgotten.
But what about the greenhouse gas Methane, you ask? Well, CH4 actually absorbs less infrared energy than CO2 and there is only a total of around 1.4ppm or 99.6% less than CO2 and almost all that is produced by nature. You do the math.
2) As CO2 rises, Global Temperatures Rise!!! (or Tree Rings Cause Global Warming!!!)
If CO2 is such an insignificant greenhouse gas, then why are CO2 levels rising in tandem with global warming? A good question. The answer is a chemical phenomenon called outgassing. This is a chemical property of gas suspended in either water or soil where more CO2 is released the hotter the gas-filled medium gets. It also works in reverse. The colder a suspension gets, the less CO2 is released.
Accordingly, rising CO2 levels aren't a CAUSE of global warming it is simply an EFFECT of global warming. Funny that ol' Al Gore left this out of his presentation, too...
It's kind of like saying since tree rings get thicker during global warming, thicker tree rings cause global warming. Well, not so much.
3) But ice core samples show CO2 and Global Temperatures are related!!! (or Houston, We Have a Problem....)
But what about the ice core samples? Surely they definitively prove that historic CO2 rises cause global warming, Al Gore said so!!! Nope. Wait for it.... They definitively prove the complete opposite. Ice core samples are probably the strongest evidence AGAINST AGW because they show a significant lag between the time global temperatures start to rise and when CO2 levels start to rise.
By that I mean ice core samples clearly show that when global temperatures initially start to increase, CO2 levels are actually still falling and when global temperatures initially start to fall, CO2 levels are actually still rising.... Eventually CO2 levels start to loosely track rises and falls of global temperatures after the initial lag due to the outgassing phenomenon, but ice core samples definitely prove that factors other than atmospheric CO2 concentrations CAUSE global temperature fluctuations. Fluctuating CO2 levels simply rise and fall as a lagging EFFECT of global temperatures due to the outgassing phenomenon.
Polar Ice Extents are SHRINKING!!! (or It's Cool to be Wrong.)
But what about shrinking Arctic and Antarctic ice extents? Doesn't this prove global warming will eventually flood the earth? Not so much. On April 04, 2010, the Arctic ice extent reached its highest level in 31 years and Antarctic ice extent is also growing.
Excuse me, but aren't CO2 levels still rising? AGW enviro-nazis are falling all over themselves trying to explain this away, saying that growing ice extents in both poles is somehow additional proof that AGW is actually getting worse... I'm not kidding.
AGW "scientist" are actually saying that when pole ice extents shrink, it proves AGW (I can follow that logic) and when they suddenly hit 31 year highs, it also proves AGW. (HUH?).
These "scientist" are absolutely insane, but it is kind of fun watching them squirm trying to come up with really cool theories to defend the indefensible.
The Hockey Stick Graph Shows We're All Going to Die!!! (or Why is my Head Exploding?)
Dr. Mann's infamous Hockey Stick Graph is what made me initially question the AGW theory. This is the graph that Al Gore used in the "An Inconvenient Truth" that basically showed global temperatures were flat from 1400 to 1900 and then suddenly rose sharply from around 1900 to the present.
This stupid Hockey Stick Graph pretty much started the whole AGW Hoax, or at least gave it legs.
There are just a few minor problems with this graph... First of all, it has now been proven by Dr. Timothy McIntyre that Dr. Mann's Hockey Stick graph was completely fabricated. After years of FOI (Freedom of Information) requests, Dr. McIntyre finally received the simulation program and raw data for the Hockey Stick graph for peer review.
Dr. McIntyre first ran a Monte Carlo test (random numbers are run through a simulation program to test for bugs) and found that any number, no matter how big or how small, would generate a similar looking Hockey Stick graph.
Such results of a Monte Carlo test can mean either two things: 1) There is an accidental bug in the program or 2) The simulation program has been purposefully tampered with.
When going through the actual computer program, Dr. McIntyre found numerous lines of code that were purposefully inserted to get a Hockey Stick looking graph. There were no bugs, it was contrived.
The reason Dr. Mann cooked the graph was that he needed to get rid of the 1400's Medieval Warming Period (not many cars back then), which was about as warm as it is now, and also get rid the mini-ice age in the 1700's. If these two climate periods were removed, then the graph would look down-right sinister and that was the whole purpose of making the bogus graph.
Dr. Mann is still under investigation by the Pennsylvania U. for his complicity in this hoax, however, it is very interesting to note that Dr. Mann recently received $500,000 in Obama stimulus funds for additional research.... Perhaps Dr. Mann is now working on a new Hockey Stick graph that shows President Obama's stimulus program is actually working!
This would make a great Saturday Night Live routine:
Obama (Holding the Progressive Hockey Stick Graph): And as you can clearly see from this graph, from 1776 to 2008, America's GDP growth was completely flat, but from the time I took office, America's economic growth has increased 15,247% thanks to my Job's Stimulus Bill, my redistribution of wealth initiative and the SEIU. YES WE CAN! (have fun with numbers).
Having Fun with Facts!!! (or Liar, Liar pants on Fire)
1) But hurricanes are growing in frequency and strength!!! No they aren't, they are at 100 year historic average levels.
2) But polar bears are dying because it's so warm in the Arctic!!! No they aren't. Polar populations are growing. In 1940, there were only about 5,000 polar bears left due to over hunting. Now there are over 25,000.
3) But tornado frequencies are rising!!! No they aren't, tornado frequencies have actually fallen over the past 50 years even with vastly improved detection devices.
4) But ocean levels are rising! New York City will be under 10 feet of water in 100 years!!! Well, for the past 150 years, ocean levels have been rising at 1.5mm per year. Man-made CO2 has got nothing to do with it. Thermal expansion of water explains most of it due to natural global warming. Melting glaciers account for the rest. Over the past 5 years, it looks like ocean rises are starting to taper off, but it's still too early to tell.
5) But Glaciers are shrinking!!! Yes, some are and some are actually growing. They've been shrinking since about 1820, way before extensive hydrocarbon use. Get used to it. When they start to grow quickly, it'll mean were entering another ice age, so be happy they are still shrinking and get a life.
6) But CO2 is pollution!!! No it's not. CO2 is essential for photosynthesis and the man-made increases of CO2 have actually increased plant growth around the world increasing timber, grain and fruit harvests. CO2 is a very beneficial gas to plant life and for easing global food shortages. I know the U.S. EPA recently announced CO2 was a pollutant, but that's simply insane and is being contested in court.
I want to make a bumper sticker that reads, "Save the trees, buy a Hummer"
So, if man-made CO2 isn't the cause for AGW, then why are global temperatures rising? Fluctuations in solar electromagnetic output, planetary oscillation, galactic cosmic radiation, vulcanism, shifting ocean currents, earth's orbit around the sun, water vapor, cloud cover, El Nino, La Nina, polar ice extents and all the interactions of all these factors contribute to both global warming and global cooling.
It's currently quite difficult to make long-term predictions of climate change, but studying geological proxy climate data, scientist know that solar fluctuations and global oscillation are the biggest drivers of long-term global temperatures.
The water vapor greenhouse gas effect is also very important for life on this planet. Without water vapor, Earth would be approximately 14.0 degrees Centigrade cooler than it is now. Without the effects of CO2 greenhouse gas, it would probably be about 14.01 degrees Centigrade cooler...
Another interesting fun fact is that one of the major advocates for AGW is Dr. James Hansen. Back in the mid 70's, he was a huge advocate for... wait for it... Anthropogenic Global Cooling! Oh, I do love it so. My head is getting ready to explode.
Another interesting fun thing to see is that AGW advocates are now starting to change their vocabulary (as is the media). Have you noticed that it is no longer called "Man-Made Global Warming" but is now called "Man-Made Climate Change"?
Given recent climate data (polar ice extent expanding hitting record levels, bitter cold winters in the Northern Hemisphere, leveling off of ocean rise, some glacier increases, no statistically significant global temperature rises since 1995, etc.) it seems that AGW scientist are starting to make the shift to advocating "Man-Made Global Cooling" again like they did in the 70's. I wouldn't put it past these idiots.
Start looking for new "scientific" research in the news about the "alarming rise of man-made particulate matter!!!" in the atmosphere caused by industrial pollution. When you start seeing articles about this new "man-made disaster", you'll know the AGW Hoax will then change to the AGC Hoax.
Just so the scientist are consistent, if the world is starting to cool again, shouldn't the AGW scientists be pushing to INCREASE CO2 levels to offset global cooling? Just a thought.
What will it take to finally put an end to this AGW hoax? It's interesting to note it took scientist 40 years to finally expose the Piltdown Man Hoax was actually derived from the jawbone of a pig.
The way this AGW hoax is going, I wouldn't be surprised if it took 40 years to expose the AGW hoax was actually derived from the jawbones of two asses (Al Gore & Dr. Mann)
I have absolutely no problem with the fact that the earth is going through a period of natural global warming (NGW). No one is contesting that. My huge problem is with the "A" part of the AGW hoax.
Ok, let's go over the various problems with the AGW "theory".
1) Carbon Dioxide Levels Are Rising!!! (or Plop Plop Fizz Fizz, oh what a belief it is.)
Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, however, it is in minuscule amounts to the tune of 385 parts per million (ppm). Most of the earth's atmosphere is comprised of Nitrogen (78%) Oxygen (21%) and Argon (about 1%) and then a whole bunch of other trace gases.
To get an idea of just how small the 385ppm is, imagine a soccer stadium filled with 100,000 screaming spectators. Total CO2 levels would represent a whopping 38.5 people out of 100,000 people--an insignificant amount.
But it even gets better.... Man-made CO2 only accounts for about 7% of total atmospheric CO2, so the man-made portion of this already insignificant number drops down to, are you ready for it... 2.7 people in a stadium of 100,000 people... Smile for the TV cameras, CO2--HI MOM!!
There is more. As mentioned earlier, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, however, it has a relatively weak greenhouse effect. Measuring the greenhouse effect by using Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy, CO2 absorbs roughly 8% of the infrared electromagnetic spectrum in the frequency range of 15 micrometers. So take that infinitesimal amount of CO2 described above multiply that by the potential amount of heat energy that CO2 can absorb and you get an idea of just how little man-made CO2 contributes to the overall greenhouse effect.
It gets even worse. The main greenhouse gas on our planet is water vapor. Water vapor has a very strong greenhouse gas effect (roughly 850% stronger than CO2) that absorbs roughly 60% of the infrared spectrum including the frequency absorbed by CO2. Furthermore, there is significantly more water vapor in the air than yearly man-made CO2 to the tune of, wait for it.. 2,100,000,000%.... Oh no, tell me ain't so.
Isn't it funny that Al Gore forgot to mention this fact in "An Inconvenient Truth". Al must have just forgotten.
But what about the greenhouse gas Methane, you ask? Well, CH4 actually absorbs less infrared energy than CO2 and there is only a total of around 1.4ppm or 99.6% less than CO2 and almost all that is produced by nature. You do the math.
2) As CO2 rises, Global Temperatures Rise!!! (or Tree Rings Cause Global Warming!!!)
If CO2 is such an insignificant greenhouse gas, then why are CO2 levels rising in tandem with global warming? A good question. The answer is a chemical phenomenon called outgassing. This is a chemical property of gas suspended in either water or soil where more CO2 is released the hotter the gas-filled medium gets. It also works in reverse. The colder a suspension gets, the less CO2 is released.
Accordingly, rising CO2 levels aren't a CAUSE of global warming it is simply an EFFECT of global warming. Funny that ol' Al Gore left this out of his presentation, too...
It's kind of like saying since tree rings get thicker during global warming, thicker tree rings cause global warming. Well, not so much.
3) But ice core samples show CO2 and Global Temperatures are related!!! (or Houston, We Have a Problem....)
But what about the ice core samples? Surely they definitively prove that historic CO2 rises cause global warming, Al Gore said so!!! Nope. Wait for it.... They definitively prove the complete opposite. Ice core samples are probably the strongest evidence AGAINST AGW because they show a significant lag between the time global temperatures start to rise and when CO2 levels start to rise.
By that I mean ice core samples clearly show that when global temperatures initially start to increase, CO2 levels are actually still falling and when global temperatures initially start to fall, CO2 levels are actually still rising.... Eventually CO2 levels start to loosely track rises and falls of global temperatures after the initial lag due to the outgassing phenomenon, but ice core samples definitely prove that factors other than atmospheric CO2 concentrations CAUSE global temperature fluctuations. Fluctuating CO2 levels simply rise and fall as a lagging EFFECT of global temperatures due to the outgassing phenomenon.
Polar Ice Extents are SHRINKING!!! (or It's Cool to be Wrong.)
But what about shrinking Arctic and Antarctic ice extents? Doesn't this prove global warming will eventually flood the earth? Not so much. On April 04, 2010, the Arctic ice extent reached its highest level in 31 years and Antarctic ice extent is also growing.
Excuse me, but aren't CO2 levels still rising? AGW enviro-nazis are falling all over themselves trying to explain this away, saying that growing ice extents in both poles is somehow additional proof that AGW is actually getting worse... I'm not kidding.
AGW "scientist" are actually saying that when pole ice extents shrink, it proves AGW (I can follow that logic) and when they suddenly hit 31 year highs, it also proves AGW. (HUH?).
These "scientist" are absolutely insane, but it is kind of fun watching them squirm trying to come up with really cool theories to defend the indefensible.
The Hockey Stick Graph Shows We're All Going to Die!!! (or Why is my Head Exploding?)
Dr. Mann's infamous Hockey Stick Graph is what made me initially question the AGW theory. This is the graph that Al Gore used in the "An Inconvenient Truth" that basically showed global temperatures were flat from 1400 to 1900 and then suddenly rose sharply from around 1900 to the present.
This stupid Hockey Stick Graph pretty much started the whole AGW Hoax, or at least gave it legs.
There are just a few minor problems with this graph... First of all, it has now been proven by Dr. Timothy McIntyre that Dr. Mann's Hockey Stick graph was completely fabricated. After years of FOI (Freedom of Information) requests, Dr. McIntyre finally received the simulation program and raw data for the Hockey Stick graph for peer review.
Dr. McIntyre first ran a Monte Carlo test (random numbers are run through a simulation program to test for bugs) and found that any number, no matter how big or how small, would generate a similar looking Hockey Stick graph.
Such results of a Monte Carlo test can mean either two things: 1) There is an accidental bug in the program or 2) The simulation program has been purposefully tampered with.
When going through the actual computer program, Dr. McIntyre found numerous lines of code that were purposefully inserted to get a Hockey Stick looking graph. There were no bugs, it was contrived.
The reason Dr. Mann cooked the graph was that he needed to get rid of the 1400's Medieval Warming Period (not many cars back then), which was about as warm as it is now, and also get rid the mini-ice age in the 1700's. If these two climate periods were removed, then the graph would look down-right sinister and that was the whole purpose of making the bogus graph.
Dr. Mann is still under investigation by the Pennsylvania U. for his complicity in this hoax, however, it is very interesting to note that Dr. Mann recently received $500,000 in Obama stimulus funds for additional research.... Perhaps Dr. Mann is now working on a new Hockey Stick graph that shows President Obama's stimulus program is actually working!
This would make a great Saturday Night Live routine:
Obama (Holding the Progressive Hockey Stick Graph): And as you can clearly see from this graph, from 1776 to 2008, America's GDP growth was completely flat, but from the time I took office, America's economic growth has increased 15,247% thanks to my Job's Stimulus Bill, my redistribution of wealth initiative and the SEIU. YES WE CAN! (have fun with numbers).
Having Fun with Facts!!! (or Liar, Liar pants on Fire)
1) But hurricanes are growing in frequency and strength!!! No they aren't, they are at 100 year historic average levels.
2) But polar bears are dying because it's so warm in the Arctic!!! No they aren't. Polar populations are growing. In 1940, there were only about 5,000 polar bears left due to over hunting. Now there are over 25,000.
3) But tornado frequencies are rising!!! No they aren't, tornado frequencies have actually fallen over the past 50 years even with vastly improved detection devices.
4) But ocean levels are rising! New York City will be under 10 feet of water in 100 years!!! Well, for the past 150 years, ocean levels have been rising at 1.5mm per year. Man-made CO2 has got nothing to do with it. Thermal expansion of water explains most of it due to natural global warming. Melting glaciers account for the rest. Over the past 5 years, it looks like ocean rises are starting to taper off, but it's still too early to tell.
5) But Glaciers are shrinking!!! Yes, some are and some are actually growing. They've been shrinking since about 1820, way before extensive hydrocarbon use. Get used to it. When they start to grow quickly, it'll mean were entering another ice age, so be happy they are still shrinking and get a life.
6) But CO2 is pollution!!! No it's not. CO2 is essential for photosynthesis and the man-made increases of CO2 have actually increased plant growth around the world increasing timber, grain and fruit harvests. CO2 is a very beneficial gas to plant life and for easing global food shortages. I know the U.S. EPA recently announced CO2 was a pollutant, but that's simply insane and is being contested in court.
I want to make a bumper sticker that reads, "Save the trees, buy a Hummer"
So, if man-made CO2 isn't the cause for AGW, then why are global temperatures rising? Fluctuations in solar electromagnetic output, planetary oscillation, galactic cosmic radiation, vulcanism, shifting ocean currents, earth's orbit around the sun, water vapor, cloud cover, El Nino, La Nina, polar ice extents and all the interactions of all these factors contribute to both global warming and global cooling.
It's currently quite difficult to make long-term predictions of climate change, but studying geological proxy climate data, scientist know that solar fluctuations and global oscillation are the biggest drivers of long-term global temperatures.
The water vapor greenhouse gas effect is also very important for life on this planet. Without water vapor, Earth would be approximately 14.0 degrees Centigrade cooler than it is now. Without the effects of CO2 greenhouse gas, it would probably be about 14.01 degrees Centigrade cooler...
Another interesting fun fact is that one of the major advocates for AGW is Dr. James Hansen. Back in the mid 70's, he was a huge advocate for... wait for it... Anthropogenic Global Cooling! Oh, I do love it so. My head is getting ready to explode.
Another interesting fun thing to see is that AGW advocates are now starting to change their vocabulary (as is the media). Have you noticed that it is no longer called "Man-Made Global Warming" but is now called "Man-Made Climate Change"?
Given recent climate data (polar ice extent expanding hitting record levels, bitter cold winters in the Northern Hemisphere, leveling off of ocean rise, some glacier increases, no statistically significant global temperature rises since 1995, etc.) it seems that AGW scientist are starting to make the shift to advocating "Man-Made Global Cooling" again like they did in the 70's. I wouldn't put it past these idiots.
Start looking for new "scientific" research in the news about the "alarming rise of man-made particulate matter!!!" in the atmosphere caused by industrial pollution. When you start seeing articles about this new "man-made disaster", you'll know the AGW Hoax will then change to the AGC Hoax.
Just so the scientist are consistent, if the world is starting to cool again, shouldn't the AGW scientists be pushing to INCREASE CO2 levels to offset global cooling? Just a thought.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Why Be Conservative?
If you ask 100 people what Conservatism means, you'll probably get 100 different answers. If, however, you ask a Conservative why they are Conservative, then the answers will tend to have similar themes.
So, why am I a conservative? I'll tell you.
#1) Conservatives Believe in Limited Federal Government Power
I'm a Conservative because I truly believe what George Washington said over 200 years ago, "Government is a necessary evil."
What George Washington meant is that the government must perform various duties and have the proper authority to exercise these tasks, however, these powers must be clearly defined, restricted and dispersed to prevent the citizens' inalienable rights and freedoms from being abrogated by the government.
If the government's power and duties are too limited, you get anarchy and if too broad, you'll eventually get tyranny.
America's first effort to accomplish this goal was a form of government established under the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation made a valiant effort to severely restrict the power of the central government and it was so successful at this that it actually lead to anarchy.
Under the Articles of Confederation, State powers were too strong and Federal powers were much too weak. Each State just had one vote in Congress, regardless of their respective populations, which wasn't fair, moreover, the Central government couldn't really collect taxes.
The Congress could only request funds from the various States (not demand) and the States, being real pikers at the time, always kept Congress destitute... Hey, wait a minute... Perhaps they were actually on to something here....
It was a unicameral legislature, meaning there was only one government branch (the Congress), so there was no balance of power and most importantly no Executive branch.... Hey, wait a minute... Nahhh... Perhaps we do actually need a President, although at times, I seriously wonder. We definitely DON'T need Executive Orders.
By the way, could someone please show in the Constitution where the President has Legislative powers... I've read the Constitution many times and must have missed that one somewhere.
It took 9 States out of the 13 States to pass any legislation.... Hey, maybe these guys were on to something here, too... It beats the heck out just needing 50 Senate votes to pass major legislation under the new nifty reconciliation procedures.
I must say, however, that it's a good thing our forefathers erred on the side anarchy rather than tyranny or we could have been permanently stuck with a government that looks more like the defunct U.S.S.R. or, even worse, like France--sacre' bleu!!
Anyway, being great Americans, our forefathers decided not to "make-minor-adjustments-to-make-it-not-stink-so-bad", but rather determined to learn from their mistakes, throw the old Articles of Confederation in the trash can and come up with something to truly make a "more perfect Union."
Reflecting on the miracle of the U.S. Constitution, Alexander Hamilton said, "Finally government was going to be established by reflection and choice rather than force and fraud." My, my couldn't our Congress learn something if they took Hamilton's words to heart.
It's obvious that few Democrat Senators and Congressmen even read the 3,000 page Obamacare bill. Accordingly, there was little reflection and absolutely no choice, especially for Republicans, when this Omamacare bill with forced through the Senate and House in a fraudulent manner.
Anyway, I digress. The Constitutional Convention was comprised of 55 delegates from 12 of the 13 States (Rhode Island sat it out--they wanted to stick with the old broken Articles of Confederation) and convened for a year of "reflection and choice" to create the world's most unique and inspired form of Government.
The U.S. Constitution is a document of grace and beauty. It limits the scope, size and power of the three Federal branches of government enumerating specific duties and obligations granted to each branch, while also creating an intricate network of checks and balances to further restrict the powers of each branch of government. If one branch does manage to do something stupid, the powers granted to other branches provide the opportunity to nullify bad decisions made by the other branches-- in a word brilliant.
The Constitution is very specific on what each branch has the power and authority to do:
They are as follows:
The ONLY Legislative Powers are:
1) Collect taxes, duties and excises.
2) Conduct a census every 10 years.
3) Impeach the President.
4) Punish Congressmen for disorderly behavior. (This keeps them real busy!)
5) Pass legislation and regulations ONLY under Federal jurisdiction and native Indian territories . (They're doing way too much of this).
6) Pay the Federal debt (They certainly aren't doing this.)
7) Borrow money (They're doing waaaaaaaaay to much of this.)
8) Regulate international and interstate trade (They're doing way too much of this, too.).
9) Coin money, prosecute counterfeiters and set standards for weights and measures.
10) Establish a post office system.
11) Build postal and interstate roads (Not local pork roads and local pork bridges to nowhere.)
12) Establish rules for naturalization. (I just can't wait for President Obama's upcoming naturalization bill)
13) Set up a Patent office.
14) Set up tribunals. (i.e. trials for Terrorist--not the normal courts, thank you very much).
15) Define penalties and punish pirates. (Does this include Congressmen?)
16) Declare war, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal and make rules concerning captures on land and water (i.e. terrorist)
17) Raise and support an Army and Navy.
18) Control over the Militia.
19) Build forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards and other useful buildings to be used by the military and Federal government Departments and agencies.
20) Regulate and Rule over Territories and land belonging to the U.S. government.
21) Amend the Constitution through 2/3 majority vote on proposed Amendment.
These are the only 21 matters the Constitution allows Congress to have power and control over. That it. PERIOD.
Any other areas of authority and power not in this list are supposed to be handled by each individual State as the States see fit. PERIOD.
What about Federal Health Care? Answer-States have jurisdiction.
What about Federal Environmental standards? States have jurisdiction.
Surely Federally controlled Education, right? No. States have jurisdiction.
Federal Welfare? Not mentioned. It's the States responsibility.
Regulate Labor Relations? Nope. The States must handle this, too.
What is really frustrating on how the Executive and Legislative branches justify the theft of the State's Constitutional powers is that they point to the phrase "promote the general welfare" found in the PREAMBLE of the Constitution and say that this gives them the authority to pretty much do anything.
First, during the 1700's, preambles were often used in contracts to explain the general intent and benefits of a given point of law or mandate. The preamble was then followed by the specific rights and limitations actually granted to accomplish the general intent and benefits of the law.
In other words, preambles grant absolutely no rights. The specific rights and the specific limitations are always clearly defined following a general preamble's intent. Any rights or limitations not specifically granted after the preamble of a contract cannot be implied or inferred to exist. If they are not specifically mentioned in the body of the law, the right simply has not been granted.
The Constitution is very specific about this issue. In the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, it clearly states, "all powers not delegated to the Federal government and not prohibited under the Constitution shall be reserved to the States or to the people."
It is obvious that the founders used the word "general" to refer to the State. If they had meant citizens welfare, the would have said citizens welfare. Just to remove any doubt about this, the second time "general welfare" was used (Article I, Section 8) it stated, "...provide for the common Defense and general welfare of the United States;".
Second, at the time of the writing of the Constitution, what did the word "welfare" actually mean? In the 1828 edition of the Noah Webster dictionary, welfare si defined as:
WEL´FARE, n. [well and fare, a good going; G. wohlfahrt; D. welvaard; Sw. valfart; Dan. velfærd.]
1. Exemption from misfortune, sickness, calamity or evil; the enjoyment of health and the common blessings of life; prosperity; happiness; applied to persons.
2. Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government; applies to states.
Since the "general welfare" clause in the preamble and in Article I. Section 8 clearly refers to the States, it is obvious that the second definition applies.
Here are the Constitutional powers granted to the President:
1) Commander and Chief of the Armed forces.
2) Grant Pardons and reprieves.
3) Make treaties (subject to 67 Senators approving it.)
4) Appoint Ambassadors, Federal Department heads and consuls (subject to Congressional approval)
5) Appoint Supreme Court Justices and Inferior Court judges. (subject to Congressional approval.)
6) Give a State of the Union Address recommending measures for consideration.
7) Can from time to time convene both or either Houses for special addresses.
8) Can meet with foreign Heads of State.
9) Can make sure laws are faithfully executed and can Veto bills.
10) Shall commission all military officers.
These 10 things are the ONLY powers the President has. That's it. Nothing more and nothing less.
Where is the power for Executive Orders? There isn't one. Executive Orders are clearly un-Constitutional. Period! The President can not make legislation. That is the purview of the Legislative branch.
The Judicial Powers are:
1) All judicial power over the laws and cases of the land are vested in the Supreme Court and other inferior courts established by the Congress.
Though formidable, that's all the power they have. The courts have absolutely no power through court rulings to establish legislation, although legislation by Judicial fiat has always been a concern.
#2) Conservatives Believe in Strict Constitution Interpretation
Our forefathers were brilliant. During the one year of Constitutional debate, through "reflection and choice", they severely restricted Federal power to avoid tyranny.
Another important reason our forefathers left so much power to the States is that they knew each State was unique and would execute their powers in different ways to address the special needs of their citizens. It was a way to incorporate healthy competition, where citizens that were not satisfied with how one State was executing their power, had the option of moving to another State that best met their needs.
Other States also had the opportunity to see the results of various experiments conducted in other States and either adopting their methods or improving them further. Competition in business and government always increases efficiency and innovation. When competition is removed or stifled from the process, inefficiency and tyranny are imminent.
Once the Federal government exceeded its Constitutional authority by establishing: Department of Education, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Labor, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Federal minimum wage regulations , Federal Health Insurance, Federal speed limits, Federal finance rules forcing banks to make sub-prime loans (CRA), excessive Federal bank and finance regulations, ad infinitum, our Republic started moving closer and closer to tyranny, while limiting the choices of its citizens, corporations and States. As a special bonus of un-Constitutional powers, America's debt and budget mushroomed to unsustainable levels depriving its citizens and corporations from much needed funds required for economic growth and prosperity.
Citizens have also lost the advantage of voting with their feet because all the ridiculous Federal regulations are made universal to all States. Corporations, on the other hand, are voting with their feet and are moving their operations to Mexico, China, India, Indonesia, Korea and other countries where such absurd regulations that kill competitiveness and profits don't exist.
Why has America created a nightmare to replace the American Dream? What is the allure of tyranny? Why must we sacrifice our freedoms for a Nanny State?
Could it possibly be that the 47% of the U.S. population that doesn't pay any Federal income taxes are more than willing to elect politicians that promise to give them even more benefits at absolutely no additional expense to them?
Wow, I'll have to get back to you on that one.... You don't have to be Albert Einstein to figure out the answer to that question.
Conservatives believe in strict adherence to the Constitution. Progressives like President Obama feel that it is an imperfect and flawed document written in Colonial times inferring that it is no longer relevant. The standard philosophy taught at Haaaaavard and Yale and most other Ivy League colleges and Universities.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPYo6bTUpjA&feature=related
Conservatives believe in the strict interpretation of the Constitution. Progressives believe the Constitution is an archaic instrument written by slave owners and is no longer relevant so it can mean anything you want it to as long as it doesn't limit Federal power or interfere in the establishment of a Nanny State.
The Progressive Constitutional Interpretation philosophy can only lead to increased Federal power, which will ultimately lead our great country to tyranny and financial ruin.
#3) Conservatives Believe in Fiscal Responsibility
The total U.S. Federal deficit and total unsecured financial liabilities (Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, Federal and State and Local Pensions, etc.) are completely out of control at around $122 trillion and growing. To put this in perspective, that's equivalent to stack of $100 bills almost 100,000 miles high... That's not only unfathomable, that's criminal.
Notice that I call myself a Conservative and not a Republican. Unfortunately, over the past 100 years, there have only been two truly fiscal Conservative Presidents: Calvin Coolidge and Ronald Reagan. Republicans have also been guilty of terrible fiscal irresponsibility. Democrats have an excuse, tax and spend is their battle cry, but for Republicans to be guilty of such reckless spending is shameful and must be stopped.
Although America has already passed the tipping point to bankruptcy (Social Security just went bankrupt in March, 2010) it's still may be possible to prevent total insolvency if we take drastic measures in the near future.
What drastic measures would be required? Personally, I think we need to cut our Federal budget by roughly 50% to equate to 10% of U.S. GDP or around $1.4 trillion/year. Such drastic cuts would have to include massive adjustments to Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare and draconian cuts in the size of the Federal government. Whole Departments (Department of Energy, EPA, DOE would be a good start), thousands Federal, State and Local of Agency offices will need to merged and/or totally eliminated and over 1 million Federal employees will need to be fired or retired. What about Obamacare? fogedaboudit. When the Republicans get simple majorities in both the Senate and House from November of this year, they can immediately starve this monster of funds and kill the beast entirely in 2014 when we get a Conservative in the White House.
To save trillions in future pension liabilities it is also essential that in 2014 when Republicans take over the White House on Congress that we make it illegal for government employees to join unions. Only about 7% of the private sector is now unionized and this will continue to drop (down from about 35% in the 50's). Now about 35% of government employees are unionized and this abomination must be stopped.
It is also important that Congress pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution limiting the total Federal Budget to 10% of GDP and not allowing any future deficit spending unless in emergencies with 2/3 approval of the Congress.
#4) Conservatives Believe in Free Enterprise
I'm a Conservative because until recently, America had the most dynamic free-market economy in the world. We still lead the world in patent applications, Nobel Prize laureates, top Fortune 500 companies, new technologies, R&D research expenditures, space exploration, computer technology, software, the service industry, car production (well now #2), the largest and most profitable financial institutions, the largest entertainment industry, the largest hotel chains, the largest pharmaceutical companies; you name the industry and we were or are, with few exceptions, the best and biggest at it.
We still have the world's largest economy but after the gutting of the free-market system that is currently being orchestrated by President Obama's administration, our free-market system of capitalism is on the verge of making it on EPA's endangered species list.
Just as an example, the new Financial Regulation Act, which will be voted on this summer is a devastating dismantling of America's financial sector, which will have many far reaching repercussions . It will grant the power to the Treasury to arbitrarily nationalize any U.S. financial institution that is deemed (at the sole discretion of the Treasury without Congressional or Executive oversight ) to have the potential of becoming insolvent sometime in the future. Well, Mr. Geithner, by definition, doesn't any company in the world have the potential to go bankrupt in the future?
What kind of insanity is this?
President's Obama administration has demonized business, characterizing them as exploiters of the masses completely blinded by greed and totally oblivious to risk. This demonization is needed to polarize the middle and lower classes to justify hiking corporate and upper class taxes. Need I remind you that the top 20% of earners in this country pay 67% of all Federal taxes? Taxes kill growth. The Laffer curve works both ways.
Americans cannot believe what is happening to our great country and are finally starting realize that the very existence of our free-market capitalism is on the brink of being destroyed.
This will not and shall not stand.
#5) Strong National Defense
I'm a Conservative because I believe America must defend and protect our great Nation by having the strongest and best equipped military in the world. I was shocked to hear President Obama explaining our new nuclear policy, which totally negates the long-term premise that if attacked by WMD, we will retaliate with a nuclear response. Such a policy has kept us safe for decades and to see this proven policy replaced by a naive one, where America disarms itself first with the understanding that all are enemies agree to follow suit is, well, crazy!
It's like pointing a gun to your own head and screaming at a mugger, stop or I'll shoot! After our enemies stop laughing at the absurdity of it, they'll most certainly reply, "Sure, go ahead, make my day."
President Reagan and many other great leaders have always negotiated with our enemies from a position of strength because our enemies knew for a fact that we will surely fulfill our threats. Our enemies feared the U.S. and we were respected by our true allies. Now our enemies think America is weak and our allies feel abandon.
Yes, we all want to see a nuclear-free world for ourselves and our children, but this can only be safely realized through strength and resolve not weakness and naivete.
Personally, I thank President Obama for waking up the American people. For decades now, we've been asleep in the back of the bus as our government slowly drove us in the direction of tyranny. President Obama has recklessly slammed on the gas pedal and drove our great nation into a tree, which has shocked us awake. Although severely injured from the wreck, we are finally calling 911 for emergency medical assistance. I just hope that after Obamacare, there are still enough qualified doctors around to heal our wounds and lead us to a road of recovery.
America will have to be in intensive care for a long time as we recover from our injuries, but America is still strong and we haven't yet forgotten the medicine that will bring us back to health and prosperity--The U.S. Constitution.
So, why am I a conservative? I'll tell you.
#1) Conservatives Believe in Limited Federal Government Power
I'm a Conservative because I truly believe what George Washington said over 200 years ago, "Government is a necessary evil."
What George Washington meant is that the government must perform various duties and have the proper authority to exercise these tasks, however, these powers must be clearly defined, restricted and dispersed to prevent the citizens' inalienable rights and freedoms from being abrogated by the government.
If the government's power and duties are too limited, you get anarchy and if too broad, you'll eventually get tyranny.
America's first effort to accomplish this goal was a form of government established under the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation made a valiant effort to severely restrict the power of the central government and it was so successful at this that it actually lead to anarchy.
Under the Articles of Confederation, State powers were too strong and Federal powers were much too weak. Each State just had one vote in Congress, regardless of their respective populations, which wasn't fair, moreover, the Central government couldn't really collect taxes.
The Congress could only request funds from the various States (not demand) and the States, being real pikers at the time, always kept Congress destitute... Hey, wait a minute... Perhaps they were actually on to something here....
It was a unicameral legislature, meaning there was only one government branch (the Congress), so there was no balance of power and most importantly no Executive branch.... Hey, wait a minute... Nahhh... Perhaps we do actually need a President, although at times, I seriously wonder. We definitely DON'T need Executive Orders.
By the way, could someone please show in the Constitution where the President has Legislative powers... I've read the Constitution many times and must have missed that one somewhere.
It took 9 States out of the 13 States to pass any legislation.... Hey, maybe these guys were on to something here, too... It beats the heck out just needing 50 Senate votes to pass major legislation under the new nifty reconciliation procedures.
I must say, however, that it's a good thing our forefathers erred on the side anarchy rather than tyranny or we could have been permanently stuck with a government that looks more like the defunct U.S.S.R. or, even worse, like France--sacre' bleu!!
Anyway, being great Americans, our forefathers decided not to "make-minor-adjustments-to-make-it-not-stink-so-bad", but rather determined to learn from their mistakes, throw the old Articles of Confederation in the trash can and come up with something to truly make a "more perfect Union."
Reflecting on the miracle of the U.S. Constitution, Alexander Hamilton said, "Finally government was going to be established by reflection and choice rather than force and fraud." My, my couldn't our Congress learn something if they took Hamilton's words to heart.
It's obvious that few Democrat Senators and Congressmen even read the 3,000 page Obamacare bill. Accordingly, there was little reflection and absolutely no choice, especially for Republicans, when this Omamacare bill with forced through the Senate and House in a fraudulent manner.
Anyway, I digress. The Constitutional Convention was comprised of 55 delegates from 12 of the 13 States (Rhode Island sat it out--they wanted to stick with the old broken Articles of Confederation) and convened for a year of "reflection and choice" to create the world's most unique and inspired form of Government.
The U.S. Constitution is a document of grace and beauty. It limits the scope, size and power of the three Federal branches of government enumerating specific duties and obligations granted to each branch, while also creating an intricate network of checks and balances to further restrict the powers of each branch of government. If one branch does manage to do something stupid, the powers granted to other branches provide the opportunity to nullify bad decisions made by the other branches-- in a word brilliant.
The Constitution is very specific on what each branch has the power and authority to do:
They are as follows:
The ONLY Legislative Powers are:
1) Collect taxes, duties and excises.
2) Conduct a census every 10 years.
3) Impeach the President.
4) Punish Congressmen for disorderly behavior. (This keeps them real busy!)
5) Pass legislation and regulations ONLY under Federal jurisdiction and native Indian territories . (They're doing way too much of this).
6) Pay the Federal debt (They certainly aren't doing this.)
7) Borrow money (They're doing waaaaaaaaay to much of this.)
8) Regulate international and interstate trade (They're doing way too much of this, too.).
9) Coin money, prosecute counterfeiters and set standards for weights and measures.
10) Establish a post office system.
11) Build postal and interstate roads (Not local pork roads and local pork bridges to nowhere.)
12) Establish rules for naturalization. (I just can't wait for President Obama's upcoming naturalization bill)
13) Set up a Patent office.
14) Set up tribunals. (i.e. trials for Terrorist--not the normal courts, thank you very much).
15) Define penalties and punish pirates. (Does this include Congressmen?)
16) Declare war, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal and make rules concerning captures on land and water (i.e. terrorist)
17) Raise and support an Army and Navy.
18) Control over the Militia.
19) Build forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards and other useful buildings to be used by the military and Federal government Departments and agencies.
20) Regulate and Rule over Territories and land belonging to the U.S. government.
21) Amend the Constitution through 2/3 majority vote on proposed Amendment.
These are the only 21 matters the Constitution allows Congress to have power and control over. That it. PERIOD.
Any other areas of authority and power not in this list are supposed to be handled by each individual State as the States see fit. PERIOD.
What about Federal Health Care? Answer-States have jurisdiction.
What about Federal Environmental standards? States have jurisdiction.
Surely Federally controlled Education, right? No. States have jurisdiction.
Federal Welfare? Not mentioned. It's the States responsibility.
Regulate Labor Relations? Nope. The States must handle this, too.
What is really frustrating on how the Executive and Legislative branches justify the theft of the State's Constitutional powers is that they point to the phrase "promote the general welfare" found in the PREAMBLE of the Constitution and say that this gives them the authority to pretty much do anything.
First, during the 1700's, preambles were often used in contracts to explain the general intent and benefits of a given point of law or mandate. The preamble was then followed by the specific rights and limitations actually granted to accomplish the general intent and benefits of the law.
In other words, preambles grant absolutely no rights. The specific rights and the specific limitations are always clearly defined following a general preamble's intent. Any rights or limitations not specifically granted after the preamble of a contract cannot be implied or inferred to exist. If they are not specifically mentioned in the body of the law, the right simply has not been granted.
The Constitution is very specific about this issue. In the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, it clearly states, "all powers not delegated to the Federal government and not prohibited under the Constitution shall be reserved to the States or to the people."
It is obvious that the founders used the word "general" to refer to the State. If they had meant citizens welfare, the would have said citizens welfare. Just to remove any doubt about this, the second time "general welfare" was used (Article I, Section 8) it stated, "...provide for the common Defense and general welfare of the United States;".
Second, at the time of the writing of the Constitution, what did the word "welfare" actually mean? In the 1828 edition of the Noah Webster dictionary, welfare si defined as:
WEL´FARE, n. [well and fare, a good going; G. wohlfahrt; D. welvaard; Sw. valfart; Dan. velfærd.]
1. Exemption from misfortune, sickness, calamity or evil; the enjoyment of health and the common blessings of life; prosperity; happiness; applied to persons.
2. Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government; applies to states.
Since the "general welfare" clause in the preamble and in Article I. Section 8 clearly refers to the States, it is obvious that the second definition applies.
Here are the Constitutional powers granted to the President:
1) Commander and Chief of the Armed forces.
2) Grant Pardons and reprieves.
3) Make treaties (subject to 67 Senators approving it.)
4) Appoint Ambassadors, Federal Department heads and consuls (subject to Congressional approval)
5) Appoint Supreme Court Justices and Inferior Court judges. (subject to Congressional approval.)
6) Give a State of the Union Address recommending measures for consideration.
7) Can from time to time convene both or either Houses for special addresses.
8) Can meet with foreign Heads of State.
9) Can make sure laws are faithfully executed and can Veto bills.
10) Shall commission all military officers.
These 10 things are the ONLY powers the President has. That's it. Nothing more and nothing less.
Where is the power for Executive Orders? There isn't one. Executive Orders are clearly un-Constitutional. Period! The President can not make legislation. That is the purview of the Legislative branch.
The Judicial Powers are:
1) All judicial power over the laws and cases of the land are vested in the Supreme Court and other inferior courts established by the Congress.
Though formidable, that's all the power they have. The courts have absolutely no power through court rulings to establish legislation, although legislation by Judicial fiat has always been a concern.
#2) Conservatives Believe in Strict Constitution Interpretation
Our forefathers were brilliant. During the one year of Constitutional debate, through "reflection and choice", they severely restricted Federal power to avoid tyranny.
Another important reason our forefathers left so much power to the States is that they knew each State was unique and would execute their powers in different ways to address the special needs of their citizens. It was a way to incorporate healthy competition, where citizens that were not satisfied with how one State was executing their power, had the option of moving to another State that best met their needs.
Other States also had the opportunity to see the results of various experiments conducted in other States and either adopting their methods or improving them further. Competition in business and government always increases efficiency and innovation. When competition is removed or stifled from the process, inefficiency and tyranny are imminent.
Once the Federal government exceeded its Constitutional authority by establishing: Department of Education, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Labor, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Federal minimum wage regulations , Federal Health Insurance, Federal speed limits, Federal finance rules forcing banks to make sub-prime loans (CRA), excessive Federal bank and finance regulations, ad infinitum, our Republic started moving closer and closer to tyranny, while limiting the choices of its citizens, corporations and States. As a special bonus of un-Constitutional powers, America's debt and budget mushroomed to unsustainable levels depriving its citizens and corporations from much needed funds required for economic growth and prosperity.
Citizens have also lost the advantage of voting with their feet because all the ridiculous Federal regulations are made universal to all States. Corporations, on the other hand, are voting with their feet and are moving their operations to Mexico, China, India, Indonesia, Korea and other countries where such absurd regulations that kill competitiveness and profits don't exist.
Why has America created a nightmare to replace the American Dream? What is the allure of tyranny? Why must we sacrifice our freedoms for a Nanny State?
Could it possibly be that the 47% of the U.S. population that doesn't pay any Federal income taxes are more than willing to elect politicians that promise to give them even more benefits at absolutely no additional expense to them?
Wow, I'll have to get back to you on that one.... You don't have to be Albert Einstein to figure out the answer to that question.
Conservatives believe in strict adherence to the Constitution. Progressives like President Obama feel that it is an imperfect and flawed document written in Colonial times inferring that it is no longer relevant. The standard philosophy taught at Haaaaavard and Yale and most other Ivy League colleges and Universities.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPYo6bTUpjA&feature=related
Conservatives believe in the strict interpretation of the Constitution. Progressives believe the Constitution is an archaic instrument written by slave owners and is no longer relevant so it can mean anything you want it to as long as it doesn't limit Federal power or interfere in the establishment of a Nanny State.
The Progressive Constitutional Interpretation philosophy can only lead to increased Federal power, which will ultimately lead our great country to tyranny and financial ruin.
#3) Conservatives Believe in Fiscal Responsibility
The total U.S. Federal deficit and total unsecured financial liabilities (Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, Federal and State and Local Pensions, etc.) are completely out of control at around $122 trillion and growing. To put this in perspective, that's equivalent to stack of $100 bills almost 100,000 miles high... That's not only unfathomable, that's criminal.
Notice that I call myself a Conservative and not a Republican. Unfortunately, over the past 100 years, there have only been two truly fiscal Conservative Presidents: Calvin Coolidge and Ronald Reagan. Republicans have also been guilty of terrible fiscal irresponsibility. Democrats have an excuse, tax and spend is their battle cry, but for Republicans to be guilty of such reckless spending is shameful and must be stopped.
Although America has already passed the tipping point to bankruptcy (Social Security just went bankrupt in March, 2010) it's still may be possible to prevent total insolvency if we take drastic measures in the near future.
What drastic measures would be required? Personally, I think we need to cut our Federal budget by roughly 50% to equate to 10% of U.S. GDP or around $1.4 trillion/year. Such drastic cuts would have to include massive adjustments to Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare and draconian cuts in the size of the Federal government. Whole Departments (Department of Energy, EPA, DOE would be a good start), thousands Federal, State and Local of Agency offices will need to merged and/or totally eliminated and over 1 million Federal employees will need to be fired or retired. What about Obamacare? fogedaboudit. When the Republicans get simple majorities in both the Senate and House from November of this year, they can immediately starve this monster of funds and kill the beast entirely in 2014 when we get a Conservative in the White House.
To save trillions in future pension liabilities it is also essential that in 2014 when Republicans take over the White House on Congress that we make it illegal for government employees to join unions. Only about 7% of the private sector is now unionized and this will continue to drop (down from about 35% in the 50's). Now about 35% of government employees are unionized and this abomination must be stopped.
It is also important that Congress pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution limiting the total Federal Budget to 10% of GDP and not allowing any future deficit spending unless in emergencies with 2/3 approval of the Congress.
#4) Conservatives Believe in Free Enterprise
I'm a Conservative because until recently, America had the most dynamic free-market economy in the world. We still lead the world in patent applications, Nobel Prize laureates, top Fortune 500 companies, new technologies, R&D research expenditures, space exploration, computer technology, software, the service industry, car production (well now #2), the largest and most profitable financial institutions, the largest entertainment industry, the largest hotel chains, the largest pharmaceutical companies; you name the industry and we were or are, with few exceptions, the best and biggest at it.
We still have the world's largest economy but after the gutting of the free-market system that is currently being orchestrated by President Obama's administration, our free-market system of capitalism is on the verge of making it on EPA's endangered species list.
Just as an example, the new Financial Regulation Act, which will be voted on this summer is a devastating dismantling of America's financial sector, which will have many far reaching repercussions . It will grant the power to the Treasury to arbitrarily nationalize any U.S. financial institution that is deemed (at the sole discretion of the Treasury without Congressional or Executive oversight ) to have the potential of becoming insolvent sometime in the future. Well, Mr. Geithner, by definition, doesn't any company in the world have the potential to go bankrupt in the future?
What kind of insanity is this?
President's Obama administration has demonized business, characterizing them as exploiters of the masses completely blinded by greed and totally oblivious to risk. This demonization is needed to polarize the middle and lower classes to justify hiking corporate and upper class taxes. Need I remind you that the top 20% of earners in this country pay 67% of all Federal taxes? Taxes kill growth. The Laffer curve works both ways.
Americans cannot believe what is happening to our great country and are finally starting realize that the very existence of our free-market capitalism is on the brink of being destroyed.
This will not and shall not stand.
#5) Strong National Defense
I'm a Conservative because I believe America must defend and protect our great Nation by having the strongest and best equipped military in the world. I was shocked to hear President Obama explaining our new nuclear policy, which totally negates the long-term premise that if attacked by WMD, we will retaliate with a nuclear response. Such a policy has kept us safe for decades and to see this proven policy replaced by a naive one, where America disarms itself first with the understanding that all are enemies agree to follow suit is, well, crazy!
It's like pointing a gun to your own head and screaming at a mugger, stop or I'll shoot! After our enemies stop laughing at the absurdity of it, they'll most certainly reply, "Sure, go ahead, make my day."
President Reagan and many other great leaders have always negotiated with our enemies from a position of strength because our enemies knew for a fact that we will surely fulfill our threats. Our enemies feared the U.S. and we were respected by our true allies. Now our enemies think America is weak and our allies feel abandon.
Yes, we all want to see a nuclear-free world for ourselves and our children, but this can only be safely realized through strength and resolve not weakness and naivete.
Personally, I thank President Obama for waking up the American people. For decades now, we've been asleep in the back of the bus as our government slowly drove us in the direction of tyranny. President Obama has recklessly slammed on the gas pedal and drove our great nation into a tree, which has shocked us awake. Although severely injured from the wreck, we are finally calling 911 for emergency medical assistance. I just hope that after Obamacare, there are still enough qualified doctors around to heal our wounds and lead us to a road of recovery.
America will have to be in intensive care for a long time as we recover from our injuries, but America is still strong and we haven't yet forgotten the medicine that will bring us back to health and prosperity--The U.S. Constitution.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)